---

Bananas

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing this debate. I believe that he will find that there are not many noble Lords who support his point of view, but it is good to debate it. For once, I have no interests to declare, which for me on agricultural matters is wonderful. In fact, I do not eat bananas either—when I was a little girl, they did not agree with me. As a sports person, I was told that I should eat them. Unfortunately, that was not possible. I do not propose to go over the ground which has been so well covered today. I have all the facts and figures, but it would be foolish for me to waste the time of the House going over what has been clearly put by noble Lords who have spoken already. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in his comment that the ACP countries have been treated shamefully. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, has underlined that it is even more unfair because of the position with the French colonies. I should like to take us further on. This debate has been going on for a long time and I want to raise several issues with the Minister. In January 2006, the organisers of the Second International Banana Conference proposed that the EU use the tariff revenue help fund to act and give more sustainable practices in all banana exporting countries. It made the following proposals: first, that the EU undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the existing EU banana import regime and its impact on poverty, income, wages, the environment and levels of development in all exporting countries, incorporating a gender analysis of these. Secondly, it proposed that the EU should support public programmes in producing countries to enforce international and national labour standards. Thirdly, the EU should fund and implement research and development programmes to improve occupational health and safety and environmental impact in banana production—something to which my noble friend Lady Hooper referred. Fourthly, the EU should fund and implement research and development programmes to find effective measures for preventing occupational and environmental risk in banana production. At this stage I began to wonder what on earth was meant by this, so I shall listen to the Minister with great interest. Fifthly, the EU should implement education and empowerment programmes in health and safety and environmental issues for workers. Sixthly, it proposed that the EU should fund and support initiatives promoted by not-for-profit, fair trade organisations, which facilitate small and disadvantaged producers’ market access. Intervention programmes could include expertise or technical support; structural investments for improvements in production capacity; and the promotion of cultural initiatives to increase the awareness of consumers in northern countries. Seventhly, the EU should support and promote programmes ensuring fair contract and access credit for all producers. Eighthly, the EU should support and promote producer-led programmes that aim to help small farmers increase their productivity, cut their costs and engage in environmentally friendly production. Ninthly, the EU should initiate and financially support consumer education campaigns in order to increase consumer understanding that prices should promote sustainability. In other words, the EU should ensure that the social and environmental costs of banana production are covered, including living wages and decent livelihoods for workers and small producers. The conference’s tenth proposal was that the EU should support financially and politically the creation of an international multi-stakeholder forum on bananas in order to tackle social, economic and environmental issues within the industry. Eleventhly, the EU should develop a proposal for differentiating tariffs on the basis of social and environmental criteria put forward by the conference organisers and look into trade barrier elimination and trade incentives for social compliance. Twelfthly, the EU should fund compensatory financial mechanisms for producers to help them meet the short-term price shocks and declining incomes which may result from EU market liberalisation. Finally, the EU should fund and support diversification programmes and initiatives of producer and/or worker groups which aim to replace current production and/or development of new markets or outlets for products, including where the workers have taken over production on plantations abandoned by companies. That is a big list. This conference was held in January. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about it, because we need to move on. I have some questions on the above. How much money has been put aside to take some of these proposals forward? Has a separate body been established to manage these initiatives? If so, what timetable is in place? What input do the Government have into these discussions and the actions that I hope will result from them? Obviously, the Conservative Party’s position is to believe in free trade in preference to barriers. However, I personally believe that we have a responsibility to former ACP countries and we should look at some of these proposals to see what we can do to move this agenda forward. My noble friend quite rightly raised the question of change in the sugar regime. It is a double whammy and it will be a very serious one for these countries. So although I have not agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, I thank him most sincerely, because this debate has given us a chance not only to reflect on where we are but to ask where we are going and what we can do to be effective. In that circumstance, I thank him most sincerely.